OURVAR ha juzgado la decisión del árbitro: Correcto. Estás votando si el análisis de OURVAR es correcto, no sobre el árbitro.
¿Estás de acuerdo con el veredicto de OURVAR?
Cada voto ayuda a afinar la precisión de OURVAR — y te lo agradecemos. La AI no es infalible, y tu veredicto es exactamente lo que la mejora, caso por caso. Estás ayudando a construir el VAR que todos merecemos. 🙏
The referee initially awarded Belgium a penalty for handball against New Zealand, but VAR recommended a review and the referee overturned it on the monitor, ruling the defender's arm was in a natural position. The final decision is correct. Under Law 12, a defender's accidental handball is a penalty only if the arm made the body "unnaturally bigger" or the act was deliberate. The defender was lunging to block with his arm out as a natural part of that motion — not extended beyond what the action required — and the shot was struck from close range, leaving minimal reaction time, which Law 12 treats as mitigation. So there was no punishable handball, and the original award was a clear-and-obvious error — the standard required for VAR to rescind a penalty already given. The referee confirming the overturn on his own monitor review is a strong endorsement of the no-handball conclusion. CORRECT DECISION, MEDIUM confidence — handball remains the most subjective area and VAR overturning a subjective call is only proper when the original is clearly wrong, which the close-range/natural-arm factors here support.
Regístrate para ver cada punto clave, las cláusulas IFAB citadas y el razonamiento cuadro a cuadro detrás del veredicto.
Cuestiona el veredicto. Pregunta a OURVAR "¿por qué?", "¿y el ángulo del codo?", "¿qué precedente hay?" — y recibe respuestas fundamentadas en las Leyes IFAB del mismo modelo que analizó el caso. Pro 25/mes · WC 50 · GB 150.
Discusión